MySQL is a beloved OSS product and project. Losing influence over that would be a massive mistake by Oracle.
Citation: https://github.com/mysql/mysql-server/commits/trunk/
https://optimizedbyotto.com/post/reasons-to-stop-using-mysql...
This has been debunked, they've never used Github as their main development area
* The new innodb_native_foreign_keys server variable has only two vague sentences describing its effect: https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/9.6/en/innodb-parameters.ht...
* The MySQL 9.6 release notes make no mention of foreign key changes whatsoever, nor of the innodb_native_foreign_keys variable: https://dev.mysql.com/doc/relnotes/mysql/9.6/en/news-9-6-0.h...
* The "What is New in MySQL 9.6" manual page is currently just a copy-and-paste of that page from MySQL 9.5, with all the "9.5"'s replaced with "9.6": https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/9.6/en/mysql-nutshell.html vs https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/9.5/en/mysql-nutshell.html
As an independent software vendor providing solutions focused on MySQL, honestly I find this situation to be deeply concerning.
I have heard that an Oracle exec made a lot of promises about renewed MySQL Community Edition attention at a pre-FOSDEM event a few days ago; can we take any of that seriously if even basic documentation updates are not occurring?
Threaded connection model (no process spawning)
Undo-based MVCC (no need for vacuum)
InnoDB's use of a clustered index for PK (has pros/cons, but better for some workloads)
Ability to use alternative storage engines such as MyRocks (LSM based instead of B-tree; best-in-class compression)
Support for index hints (so query plans won't randomly change and bring your site down)
More mature logical replication (fully supports DDL, has no concept of limited "replication slots", etc)
That all said, there are also many areas where Postgres is better! Like all things in computer science, there are architectural trade-offs, and no single silver bullet is the best choice for all workloads.
They have quite different internal design, this affects what features are possible. No clustered index in postgres for instance, and UPDATE can reorder rows, but it supports replication much better.
They had a very long and comprehensive manual. The manual on each page inter-linked easily to switch between the relevant page for different major versions with a dropdown version selector (3.x, 4.x, 5.0, 5.1, 5.5..etc).. and if a page had moved or didn't exist it always accurately redirect to the correct page as you did that switch.
And almost every single engineering change that ever mattered to me made it into the changelog and also had relevant docs. I could largely rely on it and didn't need "git log" like I mostly need today to figure out what changed in a version.
Partly this was process, every closed bug/change went to the docs team to process.. but the team was also fantastic and converting that into relevant docs and writing great docs.
A shame if that has been lost, they did have a stack of layoffs recently in MySQL.. apparently the developer team is also heavily down from where it was. I am sure this writing is a little biased but interesting reading never the less: https://mariadb.org/reading-the-room-what-europes-mysql-comm...
I used to submit doc bugs for these as I found them, and I must say the documentation team has always been very responsive and fast at fixing them, even quite recently. But I've mostly stopped submitting new doc bugs, as I can't keep spending unpaid time on this every quarter, it just isn't sustainable. They really need to have a better internal process or checklist for quarterly release doc updates.
Combined with their "closed" development process and no-longer-public worklogs (nothing under development is visible at all until the release), it becomes impossible to predict what is going to change in the next release, or what has already changed in the most recent release.
MariaDB is a lot better about everything being open/public, but they also tend to have similar delays on doc updates, occasional missing release notes items, etc. It's really strange. I mean, writing docs isn't fun, but why spend time developing a feature but then fail to mention it anywhere?